(first posted 2/13/2012) Take a close look at this 1976 Mustang II. Notice anything different? Does it look less like a Pinto in a clown suit; with that ridiculous long overhanging nose? Does it look a bit less impotent, having ditched its 13″ training wheels for some proper wheels and rubber? Yes, it’s easy (and fun) to rip apart a poorly designed car like the Mustang II, as we did the other day. But George Denzinger (geozinger) and I have teamed up to turn the clock back, and do it right.
The first step is to take a closer look at what Ford did. As is all-too obvious, the (real) Mustang II started out as a Pinto, the cheapest little car that Ford could possibly build. Although its mechanical aspects were simple and reasonably durable (unlike its main competitor, the Vega), the Pinto’s body structure came in for pretty thorough criticism.
The big question is why Ford went with the 94″ wb Pinto platform, and not the 103″ wb Maverick platform, for the MII. Some have suggested that Ford seriously considered just that route. Stay tuned.
Some have pointed out that the MII was a response to the energy crisis. If so, it must have appeared like magic, because the MII arrived in the fall of 1973, exactly when the Energy Crisis started. Even if the MII’s development time was shortened because of its Pinto basis, it still would have taken a couple of years. But there’s no doubt that the MII’s arrival was highly fortuitous: 1974 sales soared (386k), but crashed again by over 50% in 1975, and stayed at that lower level for the rest of its run. The energy crisis was its short-lived boon.
Was Lido clairvoyant? More likely just cheap. He specifically wanted the MII to chase after the new small sporty coupes that were hot. Ford’s own Capri, sold at Mercury dealers, had arrived in 1971 and was the second best-selling import car in the US during part of its run. The Opel Manta was selling fairly well too.
But the growing threat was of course from Japan, which had discovered that the sporty car market was ripe for the picking, one size below the American pony cars. The Toyota Celica, with its Mustang-esque fastback, was hot. Datsun was also moving in, and some of the others too.
According to one source, Lido said he wanted the MII to ride on a wheelbase of 96-100 inches. By designing a new front suspension and subframe for the MII, they were able to add two inches to the Pintos 94″ wb. Any more would probably have compromised the Pinto body’s known weakness. The result is a significantly shorter wb than the Capri’s 101″. The Capri was able to recreate the iconic long-hood, short tail that the original Mustang established as the pony-car “look”; the MII didn’t.
I’ve already argued that ideally, the MII should have been a properly “Americanized” Capri, with Mustang styling cues. The wheelbase and excellent chassis were all there, ripe for the picking. It might have cost more to invest in new tooling. Or more likely it was just the usual “not invented here” syndrome.
We could have based our Better MII on the Capri, but for this exercise, let’s assume that Ford had chosen the more realistic Maverick alternative. The Maverick was itself a development of the original Mustang/Falcon platform, and the cost of adapting it would have had to be very low indeed. The Maverick body would only need a fairly light re-skin, as the basic proportions and shape are all there.
The new front suspension and rack and pinion steering Ford developed for the Mustang II could have been scaled easily to the Maverick platform, potentially endowed the resulting MIIv.2 with superior handling. The real MII was cursed with severe understeer, among other handling shortcomings. Much of that was due to its nose-heaviness, because of the short wb and the long front overhang. The V6 Mach I had a 57/43 weight distribution; the V8 probably pushed that to 60% in the front. And with the Pinto chassis’ small wheels and tires, the MII was simply overwhelmed.
But what about weight? A key design/marketing goal was to offer a four cylinder in the MII, for economy and competitive reasons. Not really a problem: the 1974 MII weighed 2700 lbs for the four, and 2900 for the V6. The Maverick, in 1974 form with big bumpers, weighed 2700 lbs, the same as the four cylinder MII, and that’s with the straight six. It’s quite obvious that the (real) MII had no weight benefit from its heavily re-worked Pinto platform. Based on the Maverick, a four cylinder “What If MII” would actually have weighed less than the real thing.
And there’s certainly no doubt that the V8 would have worked much better with a Maverick-based MII. It appears that Ford didn’t intend to make a V8 MII, as they had to re-work the front end of a brand new car to do so, resulting in the v8 appearing a year later. That undoubtedly ran up costs too.
Engine line-up of our “better” MII: the 2.3 four, either or both of the 200 and 250 inch sixes, and the 302 V8. Bigger tires, brakes, rear axles, and other upgrades were all in the old parts bin. And the 351 would also have fit like a glove, with that new front suspension. The Cobra II would have had teeth instead of gums. Even with only 162 hp, the 351 would have been more than a match for the 155 hp 1975 Camaro 350.
So there it is, a better Mustang II, and one that would undoubtedly have enjoyed much greater long-term following by the go-fast/collector/Mustang crowd.
I’m not claiming it’s as beautiful as the Camaro, But it has a certain raw charm and puppy-like eagerness that makes it a worthy competitor. Oh; just one more change: call it just “Mustang”. The “II” affirmed that even Ford didn’t think this was the real deal. This one is.
Dave Skinner did a similar forward stretch of the front wheels on this coupe, and the results speak for themselves.
Ford initially planned to build the MII on the Maverick platform, and there are several styling concepts including this one, which of course is lacking the shortcomings of the Pinto-based version. Nice hefty wheels, properly placed in relation to the body. CC didn’t have to build a better Mustang II; Ford already did.
[thanks, George and Dave, for realizing my ideas so faithfully]
All interesting thoughts but Maverick was the most logical choice.
Nice work, Geo! What if? indeed. I still don’t like, though, because at that time, I hated Ford and am still not a great fan, but I do like a few of their current offerings.
Zackman: I should have made a hardtop version for you… 🙂
That’s not fair, it’s hitting below the belt!
Why don’t you? Love to see it.
Given your logic (which is very good), it sounds like on Day One of development somebody decided, “We’re going to base it on the Pinto platform. Period.” Given usual development times, this was probably back in ’71 or ’72 when the Pinto was still riding about as high as it ever did and the line of thought was to use it as the newest and most modern platform they had.
Which makes Ford come out at least as dumb as GM back then, if not dumber.
The other possibility is that the decision to base the Mustang II on the Pinto was an attempt to maximize the investment Ford had already made in the Pinto’s development and tooling. The Maverick was based on an earlier platform whose major pieces had probably long since been amortized (which was part of why Ford was able to sell the Maverick for cheap), but the Pinto platform hadn’t yet.
Why the botch-job that became the Mustang II? A question for the ages. As tempting as it might be for us to consider the Maverick as the new Mustangs basis, this concept would have taken the Mustang back to 1965, and not towards 1975.
In 1965, the Mustang was based on Ford’s smallest car. By 1971 or 72, the new Maverick was, in fact, the original Mustang. I think that Lee saw that smaller sporty coupes were a growth market (which they were). It is too bad that the MII was among the worst of them ever made. As for the excessive front overhang, wasn’t that mandatory on anything built by FoMoCo in the 70s?
I’ve been trying to find sketches or photos of the Maverick based MII for a long time. As much as I love the 71-73 Mustangs, I never thought of them as Mustangs. The Maverick should have filled that spot in 71.
You should see my post below. More “Ohio” proposals:
Wow. Really clean, that bottom one is verging on the Aerovette. makes me wonder how a II would look with thinner bumpers, and with no bumpers.
It’s also kind of Chevy Monza-esque, in a good way. I like that last one, too, but I think it might have been too much of a departure from traditional “Mustang” styling cues to succeed as one.
Upper right pic looks like the rear of the new Stang. Coincidence?
Fascinating, very clever work on the photo, nicely done! I knew it looked better but I had to look close to see the front-end slicing and dicing. You’ve proven the case for the Maverick-based Mustang.
History is so clear in retrospect. What’s funny is, if they had known somehow that the Energy Crisis was coming, it would have been Pinto-based for certain. Maybe Lido had a mole in the oil monopoly (just kidding, imagine that, ha ha).
I wonder how much finance drove all this:
1) Did the Pinto platform give them a cheaper base cost-to-manufacture, and more room for high-profit options?
2) Was international exchange a factor in not basing Mustang on the Capri? Labor and materials in Marks or Pounds more expensive than Dollars at the time?
Bean-counters generally took over in this era, and ran the Big Three into their various ditches by the Eighties.
As per the article, the Maverick weighed well less than the Mustang II, so there’s no weight advantage in using the Pinto-based body. So even if they knew the energy crisis was coming, it wouldn’t have made any real difference. And if they were that clairvoyant, they presumably would also have known that the ’73-’74 crisis was quite short, and that folks would soon be clamoring for V8 sporty cars! Or something like that 🙂
At the risk of what-if-ing the what-ifs, top brass must have expected the Pinto-based Mustang to be lighter at project start. Then it turned out to be heavier once development was finished with trying to make it a Mustang.
I have to chime in here, while doing the photo chops on this car, it was weird how the MII morphed into other cars.
There was a version I had done with a longer tail (behind the rear wheels) that made this car look somewhat like a 1975 Duster. Another one with an elongated area behind the doors reminded me of the original Capri, too.
The one huge drawback to the MII was the use of the Pinto chassis as we’ve already outlined. But particularly when you stuff a Windsor small block between the wheels and somewhat ahead of the front wheels. That just makes it a little understeering pig. Not that many of these cars of that time were going to take on Porsches at the Nürburgring. Maybe a 1979 V8 AMC AMX, but not these things.
Now that I’ve completed my little exercise, I can’t really look at these cars the same as I did before. I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about them in the first place, but I really like them less now.
“I really like them less now”
Sorry; sometimes it’s hard making a purse out of a sow’s ear, even with PS!
Everyone lays the blame for the Pinto origins of the 1974 Mustang at the feet of Iacocca, but I think it was more the fault of none other than Semon E. ‘Bunkie’ Knudson.
Bunkie was the guy who Hank the Deuce scored a big coup by luring him away from GM in 1968 to become Ford’s president. Besides the styling faux pas of tacking a Pontiac-like beak onto the 1969 Thunderbird, Bunkie’s other big mistake at Ford was enlarging the 1971 Mustang to more easily accept the biggest Ford engines (the 429). As everyone now knows, the 1971-73 Mustang, while not exactly a disaster, definitely wasn’t a success, either.
Imagine if Knudson hadn’t been made president of Ford and Iacocca had gotten the job much sooner, instead. Iacocca may well have foreseen the demise of the musclecar market and reeled the 1971 Mustang back to being based on the Maverick,
It could be said that the Pinto-Mustang II was a backlash against the gross tank the 1971-73 Mustang had become at the hands of Knudson. While a 1971 Maverick-Mustang certainly doesn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t have been a Pinto-based 1974 Mustang II, the prospects against it happening likely would have been much better if the prior Mustang had been sized closer to the original.
Iacocca’s formula was to dress up basic platforms to make more profitable versions–original Mustang & Lincoln Mark III and K-car variations at Chrysler–so is it possible that one of the justifications for building the Pinto platform in the first place was to be able to build a slightly larger but more expensive version to make the project more profitable? Even at the volumes they sold Ford couldn’t have made much money from the Pinto because they sold for such low prices. But to be able to build a slightly larger, much more expensive car from the same basic pieces would certainly make the whole Pinto project much more appetizing to executives looking for even greater profits.
It’s simple, Ford loved overhanging noses:
LTD II
Ever looked at the overhang of a 73 Charger? Or a Matador coupe? It was common for the time.
Don’t forget the ’70 Monte Carlo and its 5 gallon bucket-esque fan shroud necessary to bridge the chasm between the engine and the core support.
LTD
T-Bird
Mustang II
Ford did like long overhangs and plenty of understeer in their 70s offerings.
/\ space maximization rather than utilization…
Great article, you have to wonder why they felt the need to go so small for the Mustang, much smaller than the original, rather than the more logical Maverick-based item given the need to “reset” after the excessive 71-73’s (three iterations of gaining 2-4″ length and ~300lb each time).
I’d go a step further – why go clean-sheet on the Pinto rather than build a local version of the Cortina/Taunus whether the Mk3/TC or carry over the old Mk2 platform which was a bit smaller and could have been cheaper. That would give a sedan to start with, they could have still done a shorter wheelbase hatch like the Pinto if wanted, or just used the TC1 coupe. If a smaller car was needed, there was the original rwd Escort… That old NIH is a powerful thing.
Around 1967-68, Ford actually strongly considered a Mk1 Escort coupe that would also have been sold in the U.S. Obviously, it didn’t make it, I assume because the Capri seemed like a better bet for American tastes.
I imagine the problem with doing a local version of the Cortina Mk2 or Cortina Mk3/Taunus TC platform would have been that it would have been a lot more expensive than using the existing Pinto or Maverick platforms. Unless Ford had been willing to import the car from the U.K. or Germany, which would have been more expensive (especially once it became clear in late ’71 that the fixed exchange rate system was floundering), tooling to build the Cortina in the States would have cost almost as much as tooling for an all-new platform. The whole rationale of cars like the Mustang, Capri, or Camaro was that they were relatively cheap to build, so that would not have been a good equation.
If they’d brought out the Mk3/TC Cortina as a new small Mercury sedan (not shared with a US Ford) that would have enabled the costs to be spread somewhat and would have given them a 101.5″ wheelbase chassis for the basis of a killer Mustang II. They could have picked up the Aussie body strengthening to help it to cope with the weight of the six.
Hang on; what was the wheelbase of that 2 door Maverick? Never mind.
A lot of Maverick owners in recent years have effectively built the Maverick-based Mustang. Pretty much everything that makes early Mustangs go, stop and handle better can be bolted onto a Maverick.
Well…hindsight is 20/20; and nobody disagrees that the MII was a turd. How highly polished, we can quibble.
But…let’s magically step back to, oh, say, December 1973. I can; because my folks were in the market for not one, but TWO new cars. And the prices at the pump were rising to the terrifying level of…(drum roll) FIFTY-SEVEN CENTS A GALLON.
(In fairness, that converts to $2.83 in today’s funny-money…)
Anyway…Vegas and Pintos, slow sellers in previous quarters, were flying off the transport trucks. Japanese imports were selling as well…even second-tier units like the Mitsubishi “Dodge” Colt. Honda was off to a fantastic start with their new Civic.
Now…into this mix, imagine the “new” Mustang II…Maverick size, with a 250 six or a 302. Would it sell?
I think not. Four cylinders were hot then. My old man got a reasonable deal on a four-door Maverick; that after quickly looking at a Pinto and seeing just how cramped and low it was inside. It was to be his commuter car…and at the same time, a two-for-one deal, he got a leftover ’73 Torino marked down. A THOUSAND bucks! They couldn’t give V-8 rigs AWAY…
A “sporty” Maver-stang with the typical Ford power lineup of the time…simply would not have sold. Maybe in eighteen months; but as likely by that time the New Mustverick would have gotten an Edsel-like aura of a loser.
A Capri-based MII wouldn’t have been handicapped that way. But with the much higher costs entailed by the (required; no other source) German-built engines and on a German design…would have had limited appeal. A Mustang’s niche wasn’t as a sports car; but a “sporty” car. An image car…for a price.
This was probably a no-win situation for Ford. With hindsight, maybe the best thing would have been to give the marque a hiatus; but nobody saw the oil crisis coming or knew if it was permanent.
I guess you didn’t read it properly then. I specifically point out that the “Improved MII” would weigh the same or less than the real one, and that the four cylinder would be the base engine.
Nothing really changes, except the front wheels move forward. The car is still the same length and size overall. Economy is the same. Same lineup of engines, except the in-line sixes could be used instead of the little V6.
Handling is much better, thanks to better weight distribution and availability of bigger tires. The V8 would work much better in it. And most of all, it looks better. All gain; no pain.
You’re right that I skimmed over that…a quick read before turning in for the night.
But, that given…I don’t see how it could be. Most of the weight added to the MII over the Pinto was in sound-deadening and premium interior materials – something to justify the added price over an econobox stripper.
A Maverick-based Mustang would need as much; or would get as much. Take the difference in weight between MII and Pinto; then add that to the stripper Maverick curb weight; and you have a rough approximation of what this thing would weigh.
I don’t see how they could have come in with a LOWER weight then the Maverick without re-engineering the chassis – which would defeat the purpose of using it as a base.
Not all of the Mustang II’s extra weight versus the Pinto was sound-deadening material (some of which was specific to the Ghia, in any case) — the MII also had the front subframe (the infamous “toilet seat”). I don’t know how much the subframe and its mounts added, but since part of its purpose was to act as a damping weight and shift front end loads back into the floorpan, that presumably accounts for a big chunk of the extra mass.
Would you credit Ford with forecasting the oil crisis in about 1970 and developing the MII to deal with it? Like the Probe in the 1980’s perhaps they would have been better off calling the MII something else and going with the Maverstang. Then again probably not enough room in the line up for both.
No, because the oil “crisis” in 1973 was 100-percent political. Nor was it a permanent or sustainable situation for the OPEC states – the embargo hurt them more than the Western customer-nations, at that time.
A reasonable person could have predicted such a problem at some point in the future. But pinpointing the exact time this might happen would be impossible.
Timing is everything with such products – CC is filled with recollections of models ahead of their time; or too late to the party; or answering the question no one was asking.
Any harm it caused OPEC was strictly temporary and a price they were willing to pay. The point of the exercise was to disabuse the major Western oil companies of the notion that they could control or dictate oil prices, something for which OPEC members had been looking for an opportunity.
I’ve always wondered about Ford’s apparent clairvoyance on this. There was reason to expect some oil supply problems from the spring of ’71 (when US output started declining) on and it must have looked scarier after August (declining production and price controls are a bad mix). There were also hints between that time and October of ’73 that the Arabs might try to make better use of oil as a weapon in the “next conflict” whenever that would be. The White House was running scared about energy during this period and I’m sure some of that made its way into corporate boardrooms. The big three had a battle-induced skepticism of such thinking; they had already been burned in the post-Suez-crisis downsizing efforts of the late-50s and early ’60s. But I’d be surprised if it didn’t play a factor in the decision. Iacocca had always had an affinity for small cars anyway and must have wondered why the ’71-73 Mustang, which was essentially a 2 person (+ 2 watermelon) car, had to be the size of a midsized sedan. Since the Pinto was his baby anyway, he had all the more reason to want to make use of it. My thoughts on the use of the Maverick were similar to those of JustPassinThru: would the Maverick still be anywhere near the target weight after the body stiffening, sound proofing, beefed up wheels, tires and suspension and whatever else it took to make a respectable Mustang were added? If the straight 6 (probably a huge cost savings VS the German V6) were made the base engine, they could probably have gotten by with less soundproofing (not that that would save a lot). And with post-’73 hydraulic bumpers, the weight saved by moving the front wheels into Pinto-position was probably reduced some, compared to what it would have been in the ’60s. But just because it was bigger in every dimension, I suspect that a Maverick based car would still weight more. So, maybe a further-stretched Pinto, with better weight balance and less overhang, would have been a little better fit for the role. But even that leads back to another of Ford’s dilemmas during those years, the long hoods on their cars were not always just for show; I believe they needed the extra “crush space” for some models. Otherwise, there would have been no rational reason to add 6 inches to the front overhang of the already comically-huge ’74 Continental for the ’75 model year. If that was a factor, a stretched Pinto with an inline 6 might have given them crash-test troubles, but the V6 or inline 4 might still have worked. Whatever the reason, they went with the barely stretched Pinto, which was probably the cheapest option, at least, aside from the cost of the V6. They were probably hoping for better luck with power plant development than they actually had (I remember one point in ’73 when the EPA was threatening to halt some of their production). Holding off on the use of catalytic converters until 1976 (except for the CA V8s, I believe) and relying on engine tweaks for EPA compliance just made matters worse.
JUSTPASSINTHRU: “Well…hindsight is 20/20; and nobody disagrees that the MII was a turd.”
I’ve been on here long enough to disagree! I disagree. Here’s an excellent history of the Mustang II
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang4.htm
“Not Just a Sporty Pinto
At announcement time, some observers suggested Mustang II was just a sportier Pinto. Of course, that was how it started. And sure enough, a good many components were shared. Even wheelbase was the same.
But the Pinto was actually upgraded for ’74 to take advantage of components and features designed for Mustang II. For example, both models employed unit construction — another first for the pony car — and shared a basic coil-spring front suspension with unequal-length upper and lower arms.”
An obviously warmed over Mustang II, but not a photoshop. ditching the silly 13″ wheels helps a whole lot!
I liked it then (I had one, after a Demon 340 no less!) and I still like them.
Fixing that massive front overhang does wonders. Wonder how difficult it would be to actually do that little mod… hmmmmm…
The Mustang II has quite a following on UK drag strips,mostly found with a 351 and showing a lot of big block big buck muscle cars who the Daddy is.I’ve got a strange interest in the unloved 70s go faster striped all show no go cars.I blame my brother when he showed me the Plymouth Volare Roadrunner he snapped on holiday
It’s well documented why the Maverick wasn’t used as a basis for a “mid 70’s” Mustang. Many books give insight to this subject, so I’m not so sure why all the theories? Early 1969 is when the program started for a new Mustang to replace the to-be-new in 1971 generation, so everybody can throw OPEC out of the equasion.
Quotes from an Anna Muccioli, at a Ford stockholder meeting in 1968: “Why can’t you just leave a small car small? You keep blowing them up and starting another little one, Blow that one up, and start another one…”. Iacocca was listening.
Then Knudsen was fired toward the end of 1969. Before December, now in charge Iacocca had redirected plans for the next Mustang to go from an even bigger version of the last, into something different altogether. Codenamed “Ohio”, the developing model based on the soon to be released Maverick was one of Iacocca’s top priorities. Also approved at the same time was a smaller car, based off the developing Pinto platform, code named “Arizona”. Original customer clinics in Southern California showed high approval towards the smaller “Arizona” trials, which were half the reasoning. The other half, as quoted by Eugene Bordinat regarding Advanced Design chief Don DeLaRossa’s “Ohio” clay models: “(he) put his studio to work on a clay model showing how big the Mustang would have to be to accommodate that I-6 engine. He got me to call Lee over for a look at it. Don became, shall we say, very forthright and told Lee if we really wanted to make a smaller car, we had better start with a smaller engine. Lee agreed with us and that was the end of the I-6.”
This is one of the “Ohio” studies:
I like its fender creases, like the 1971-73. Could be a 1978 Malibu. With the Javelin, Challenger, Barracuda & 2nd Gen. F bodies Ford wasn’t alone anymore. As the Cougar grew to a mid sized brougham fighter.
I haven’t looked at this blog post in quite a while, the Ohio study reminds me of a really large Chevy Vega. The roof line is what reminds me of the Vega mostly. I think if it had a typical FoMoCo roof line (think 1972 Torino two door), it would look more like a Ford.
I guess the influence from Bunkie Knudson’s time at Ford was still in high gear at that time…
For those who want to see “Arizona” proposals, this is the one that convinced Iacocca the hardtop was worth keeping. It’s nickname after positive reactions in those California customer clinics? “Anaheim” :
That looks more like a K car than some K cars did. How ironic.
Good Lord that just looks like they tried to sportify a Granada.
Such a subtle change, it’s really hard to distinguish it from the Pinto based II. Looks great, but to be honest, I never had a problem with what Ford did. With the Mustang II, I especially loved the rear side window design and curve. It just looks right to me, as does the front headlamp and grille treatment. Even the side C pays homage to the original perfectly. This tribute to the Mustang II has me really thinking about this car and I feel in the future, more and more folks will be looking back fondly at this little car.
You guys rock, M2 based on Maverick would have been great. Another quick rendering on that idea:
The Maverick looked pretty sporty as it was, with the wheels set forward compared to the MII’s prodigious overhang. Would there have been enough differentiation in the customer’s mind to make the rebodying costs worthwhile?
Of course. The Mustang name had lots of equity still, and it would have looked a lot better and sold for more money. Also, the Maverick was mostly sold as an economy car, and by 1974, sales were drooping, and it would be gone in a few more years.
Ford could have eliminated the Grabber package, and positioned the Maverick even more as an economy car. Or just phased out the coupe, as the 4 door was selling well.
The Maverick sold great the first year, but it was never a true sporty/performance car, unlike say the Duster 340. That was something altogether different, and it did have a negative effect on the Barracuda.
I was not reading CC when this article appeared but have commented in other MII articles about using the Maverick platform.
If Ford did that the car would have been at least somewhat bigger. The MII was the perfect size. The bloated ’71-73 Mustang was Maverick-based remember. They were trying to do something radically different.
Larger body, everything else pretty much equal (solid axles, iron blocks, etc.), means the MII would have weighed more. The engines strained enough in the Pinto-based MII. Would have meant no 4-cyl. and the ancient Falcon I6 in place of the brand new 2.8L V6 from the well regarded Capri.
The Mustang II’s incredibly high sales volume came from getting a lot of things right, like having a small size with 4-cyl. to go against the Celicas and a hatchback. Everyone wanted a hatch. The Maverick was never designed as one and to add it would have meant even more weight (+150lbs. in the case of the Capri II) and more cost.
The entire bet would have been on the V8 and let’s face it the ’75 302 with another 300 lbs. would have been been a total joke. Even with the same weight it couldn’t have done all that volume.
Finally while the front wheel would have been further forward you probably would have been stuck with the Maverick’s windshield angle unless you wanted to invest even more money. At that point it would have been like doing a whole new car and you would have lost the MIIs price point.
As for MII sales having a great first year and then tanking, not true. Everyone will agree the Fox Mustang sold great in its first few years. Well the Mustang II outsold it in years 1-5. Both cars benefited from an oil shock in their first year.
Your comment was expected….I know how you feel by now. But you might have done me (and yourself) the favor to at least read it completely.
Regarding weight (from the post) : But what about weight? A key design/marketing goal was to offer a four cylinder in the MII, for economy and competitive reasons. Not really a problem: the 1974 MII weighed 2700 lbs for the four, and 2900 for the V6. The Maverick, in 1974 form with big bumpers, weighed 2700 lbs, the same as the four cylinder MII, and that’s with the straight six. It’s quite obvious that the (real) MII had no weight benefit from its heavily re-worked Pinto platform. Based on the Maverick, a four cylinder “What If MII” would actually have weighed less than the real thing.
How much clearer can I make it? The MII was porkier than the Maverick. Period. And the 2.3 L four was used quite extensively and reasonably satisfactorily in the Fox cars like the Mustang and Fairmont. They weighed less than the MII too, even though the Fox Mustang had a considerably longer wheelbase. The 2.3 would have worked equally fine in a Maverick-based Mustang II, as it would conceivably have been even lighter than than the actual MII. Let’s stop assuming the Maverick was a heavier car than the MII, which it wasn’t.
You say: The MII was the perfect size. The bloated ’71-73 Mustang was Maverick-based remember.
That statement is utterly off the mark. The Maverick had a 103″ wheelbase, shorter than any Falcon or Mustang. It essentially was a shortened version of the original 1965 Mustang, and used the narrow body that it had too. Here’s the details from my “Falcon Platform” article:
“#12 1970-1977 Maverick and Comet two-door coupes 103″ wb; 55.5″/55.5″ track
Although the wide-body Falcon platform had taken over after 1966, the Falcon’s deep slump and growing import sales made it expedient to get some new small cars to Ford dealers. The Pinto was still a bit in the offing, but a short term solution was the 1970 Maverick, introduced early in the Spring of 1969 (CC here). It revived the the original Falcon’s narrow platform dimensions, with an even shorter wheelbase. Of course, space utilization suffered as a consequence, as well as rear headroom, but it had that desirable sporty coupe look. Too bad it didn’t drive like a genuine sporty coupe.”
The 1971-1973 Mustang was two generations bigger than the original Mustang, with the body having been widened twice. I’ll repeat it again: the Maverick was a shortened version of the original narrow-body Mustang.
Which of course means it would have worked perfectly in terms of Ford wanting to get back to a a Mustang closer in size to the original. A Maverick-based mustang would have had 5″ less wheelbase than the original Mustang, and been considerably more compact.
But don’t let facts get in the way of your strong emotions! 🙂
I did read it. I still think it would have weighed more and wanted to make the points about the hatch (which you didn’t address) and if they had gone Maverick how it would have meant the Falcon I6 and not the V6. They wouldn’t have gone to the trouble (and expense) of making the V6 work if the I6 was good to go.
It took a 4-cyl., the V6 plus a sound package to make it a “little jewel” that could go head-to-head with the likes of the Celica. The only way a Maverick I6 or 4-cyl. could have weighed anything close to the MII would have been without the sound packages. A car like that would not have been competitive with Celica and not been a good mini-Mark.
I’m not saying a Maverick based Mustang II would have been a bad car just a very different one that would not have sold as well. Your Maverick Mustang II looks better, I’ll give you that 😉
Theres a M2 around here 302 motor in it not sure of the year ugly as sin the looks havent improved since the first one I saw, the Capri was such a better looking car never mind any dynamic qualities just having to look at a M2 to get into it would be too much to bear.
The only thing I ever realize when I read articles like this is the weakness man so easily succumbs to of opinions construed as facts, criticism, and arrogance. First off you don’t like the Mustang II, that’s fine, but writing a whole article on it? Really? Every car, or every object in the known universe has pros and cons. You can highlight the flaws on anything. But more often then not you criticise off your own opinions, or to clarify what I mean by that, the biased use of facts. I for one am a great lover of the Mustang II, it is a great car I enjoy driving mine around. Is it the best car? no, nor did I expect it to be. I find the body styling very aesthetically pleasing. And I thank all of you who despise the Mustang II for keeping this wonderful car’s price very cheap.
You’re most welcome! 🙂 I’m happy to take the credit, but somehow I don’t feel I’m worthy of it. Maybe I’m not the only one who’s not wild about the MII?
The 1974 Mustang II was based on the 1970 Grand Torino!! NOT the pinto you fools. I saw a video on YouTube about it. Look at the side view of the grand torino and the mustang II you will see it on the overall shape and the line on the rear quarter. The pinto is round and flat the torino has the line on the quarter like the mustang II
You’re obviously talking about its styling, which is somewhat true, as that was the Ford styling theme of the time.
We’re talking about what the Mustang II was based technically/mechanically, meaning under the skin. The Mustang II WAS based on the Pinto, as in using its floor pan and other aspects of its inner structure, as well as its rear suspension, brakes, some of the same engines, transmissions, etc.
That’s what is meant by “based on”; what the car was developed from. Ford started with a Pinto, and made changes to it to turn it into a Mustang II. The styling is just the outer skin.
So please don’t come in charging in here telling us we’re fools, unless you know what you’re talking about.
If they are so much alike why does the 74 Haynes Repair manual for the Mustang II not list the Pinto as well? If you look at the Haynes manual for the Pinto it list the Mercury Bobcat as it’s kin not the Mustang II. “Only a few of the chassis items such as front wheel spindles, brake discs and brake master cylinder, universal joints and such parts, are common to both Mustang and Pinto. These parts represent approximately just 10% of the total parts which make up Mustang”.* They did not turn the Pinto into a Mustang – I encourage you to read Mustang Genesis you will get the story from the people that were actually there. It was what was done at the time like the Falcon was the base for the Mustang and the Torino was for the Thunderbird. You cut production cost by using the resources you have. Now I am not saying that it is the greatest car ever made, but it holds a significant role in Mustang history.
*Mustang II Network.
Haynes is a garbage manual, so I wouldn’t put too much stock into it based on that alone. But either way, there are separate books for shared platforms from them, and if you look closely at many of their illustrations they’ll recycle images of shared components
The Pinto was an all new design for Ford, introducing rack and pinion steering for the first time on a North American Ford. The Mustang II inhereted that and several other key hardpoints from it.
I recall some really odd combination Haynes and sometimes Chilton manuals that threw together two or more cars that weren’t all that closely related; this seemed to be most common for older cars that probably wouldn’t generate enough sales if they each got their separate book.
I agree that the styling is pretty similar. I made this photoshop a while back showing the resemblance the Mustang II front end has to the 1973 Gran Torino front end, deleting the inboard headlamps and body coloring the bumper.
I bet A-Team Racing, LLC would appreciate this article, considering that they started building customized Mustang IIs recently, one of them with a Triton V-10.
I totally agree, Paul, that the Maverick could have (and likely should have) been converted to the Mustang, because it already had the smaller car proportions. Perhaps the Maverick was already too established as its own nameplate in its basic plain jane transportation reputation and that Ford thought that a new Mustang needed to have better connotations. Even with that, though, it became obvious early on that the car was a re-skinned Pinto, so there would have been some negative baggage there, as it was…..maybe they had felt that the Pinto had the better, more progressive idea in being a true compact car.
I had no idea about the weight being about the same as the Mustang II, though……people have said that the Mustang II was overweight for its size, but I wasn’t really sure as to any real comparison as with the Maverick.
Why was the Mustang II so heavy for its size? If it were IRS or something like that, I could understand it, but without delving into it too much, there’s nothing that seems to be obvious in terms of why it’s so heavy.
The apparent weight disadvantage to Maverick probably can be charged to some combination of less than perfect development from a less than perfect starting point. They started with Pinto bones, worked on it with the time and resources available, and this is what they had when it was time to order tooling.
The reason is because the Pinto’s body substructure was originally designed for minimum weight/maximum economy, and was roundly criticized for being “tinny”. In the process of developing the MII, both it and the ’74 Pinto got some massive (heavy) reinforcements to their bodies, which did make them both feel substantially more solid. And the MII got lots of sound deadener to make it quieter yet. And the MII got a front subframe, which also added a fair amount of weight but added to its better ride and quietness.
Turning a weak structure into one that feels solid is not weight-efficient. The new 1979 Fox Mustang weighed less than the MII, yet was substantially stiffer and thus better handling.
The choice of using the Pinto as a starting point for the MII carried a number of penalties, excessive weight being one of them.
Does anyone remember the other Pinto based car of the 70’s, the Model A replica? They were sold at Ford dealers and had factory warranties.
Early last year I bought a 1973 Ford Mustang Hardtop Coupe bronze exterior with brown landau top and brown leather interior. All original 8600 miles Arizona car with original paint! 302 2B auto power steering factory AM radio factory AC manual windows. Beautiful car with all books and original owners manual! Oh asking price was 19K I got it for 17K
That $17,000 was $2,900 in October 1972. Considering the car as optioned probably cost $3,600 new, that wasn’t a bad deal!
Replace ALL the soft parts. Belts, hoses, window seals, vacuum hoses, fuel connectors. Especially the fuel connectors and brake lines! Might as well do the master cylinder and brake cylinders too
Alan, your car sounds like a stunner. Congratulations on that find!
Just wondering if anybody has thought the Mustang II might just be trying to repeat history and hope the magic works again?
1960. . Ford brings out its anti-car car..the falcon. Simple , cheap, easy to fix and sells a zillion of them. A few years go by and Lee wants to appeal to a younger crowd. Sexes up the falcon and voila…the Mustang!
1970… Ford brings out its anti-car car..the pinto. Simple, cheap,easy to fix and sells, ok, a half a zillion of them. A few years go by and Lee wants to appeal to a younger crowd. Sexes up the pinto and viola…the Mustang II!
Could it just be that simple?
I recall seeing an ad when the Mustang II came out, showing a ’65 Mustang pictured above it and pretty much acknowledging the bloat of the later models and this car was supposed to be going back to the basics like the original.
Using the Maverick would have been a more faithful version, basically going back to a ’65 Falcon chassis. Adding rack and pinion steering wouldn’t have been difficult, it’s done commonly to many cars today in the aftermarket.
“Now someone needs to do a coupe version with the same proportions.”
Challenge accepted!
Nice! I’ll add it to the post.
At what exact point did Ford decide to base the Mustang II on the Pinto? This proposal, dated October 29, 1971, appears to be Pinto-sized but does a much better job disguising the small wheels and front overhang than the production version did. The sculpturing of the front fender here is excellent – it doesn’t needlessly bulge the front fender upward to create an arc, and adds a strong horizontal character line a few inches above the wheelwell to drastically shorten the apparent sheetmetal area above the front wheel, which is excessive in the production MII. The wheelwells also appear to be larger on this mockup especially in the rear, although the wheels & tires themselves don’t look like they’re much if at all bigger. The overall look is more modern too, moving away from the late ’60s/early ’70s fuselage/Coke bottle look and more toward the future Fox Mustang. There’s also some design language shared with the upcoming Granada.
Here’s the story from one source:
Shortly after Bunkie Knudsen was removed from his position at the Ford Motor Company, Iacocca proposed that Ford build a new, small-sized sporty car. Recognizing the immediate need for such a vehicle the project was given top priority within the company. Quickly two proposals were prepared. One code named “Ohio” was a car based on the Maverick and this vehicle was intended to become the new Mustang for 1974. The second proposal was dubbed “Arizona” and this project was aimed to become an upscale vehicle based on the sub-compact Pinto due for release in 1975.
Meanwhile the Lincoln-Mercury division started selling the sporty Capri imported from Ford’s European operations. The Capri was a small, sporty car that was inspired by the original Mustang but was made to suit European needs and tastes with a compact design and smaller engines. The Capri was a huge success in Europe and quickly became a strong seller in America shortly after its launch in the United States. In July 1971, with strong sales of the Capri and with other small, sporty imports making in-roads into the market, the decision was made to scrap plans for the Maverick based “Ohio” Mustang and concentrate on the “Arizona” project, tailoring that car to become the next Mustang.
After some underwhelming designs proposals, Iacocca proclaimed that a styling competition should be held within the company to determine the new shape of the Mustang. Certain parameters were set in place. The new Mustang needed to be small with a wheel base between 96 and 100-inches; the car had to be well built and exude luxury. It had to be an upscale car that would put all other four-cylinder cars to shame, and finally the car needed to be sporty with a notchback coupe or fastback body style.
Initially the winning design was a fastback; however there was much debate within the company whether the new Mustang should be a notchback coupe or a fastback with a rear hatch. The focus groups weren’t conclusive with some studies coming back with neither car as the clear choice. In the end both a notchback coupe and hatchback body styles were chosen. The winning fastback design was reconfigured as a hatchback and then a coupe was designed from the hatchback.
The coupe you showed was apparently a losing contestant. Also, with that camera angle, it’s hard to judge the front overhang. The coupe below was also rejected, but it more directly led to the final fastback, and its front end is very similar to the production MII.
The prototype I showed would have been from at least 3 months after the decision to go with the Pinto platform. It’s clear that the stylists weren’t taking 5mph bumpers into consideration yet though (the 5mph bumper edict had just been issued around this time, only 2 years before it was to take effect). which allowed for a shorter overhang.
The winning notchback proposal can be seen behind the gentleman in the photo you posted; “Anaheim”. I have it pictured in better detail upthread from a previous post. As to your question regarding when Ford started using the Pinto platform as a basis, it was right at the beginning of 1970. The Pinto based trials, not the Maverick sized ones, had higher consumer approval in the clinics held, resulting in what we now know to be the II.
Is it just me or does every single one of the Pinto based proposals look better executed than the final result?
They look better to me too.
Had the Mustang II been based on the Ford Maverick platform, could the Pinto based car have instead been re-purposed as a US built Ford Capri (below the alternate Mustang II with 1.6 Kent / 2.0-2.3 Pinto to 2.8 Cologne V6) and perhaps even carried over much of the European Ford Capri’s styling?
Or would the US have been better off directly building the European Ford Capri in the US and thus also producing the European Ford Cortina in the US in place of the Ford Pinto?
It would not have been unusual for Ford to apply the Capri name for its own model in North America, given they also used the Granada and Escort names for the North American market.
Also at the upper end of this hypothetical Mustang II (“Ohio”) range, notwithstanding the fuel-crisis / CAFE / etc. Could the platform take larger engines above the 4.9-5.8 Windsor V8, such as the 335 / Cleveland and 385 V8s?
The article itself, and JPC’s comment from five years ago sums up why the Mustang II was what it was.
Ford was not prescient about OPEC in 1973, just as much as they were not prescient that in 2017 the US Pony Car would still be alive in a form reminiscent of the 1960s from the three remaining Detroit players.
So, in the panoply of the entire Mustang franchise, the Mustang II was a dud. Ford damn near did it again by probing the possibility that the V-8 RWD Pony should be given up for dead in 1989 with a FWD replacement. Near the last minute, they decided to let the Fox Mustang live on in parallel with its previously proposed successor.
What Ford understood in the early ’70s was that the insurance companies and changing market interests were killing the Pony Car as it was defined then – with overtones of muscle car vs. the secretary’s car it had started out as. The also saw AMC and Chrysler failing in and abandoning the market, they even understood GM was losing faith in the F-Body.
Ford saw the potential in cars like the Capri and Celica in the US, and decided to create that on a domestic assembly line, and simply saw an opportunity to use the incredible brand equity in the Mustang name. Honestly, if the car had been a credible Celica competitor through its life, and GM had given on up the F Body when they thought about it, I doubt the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger as we know them today would have happened.
What Ford didn’t see coming was that the GM F-Body would become a success in the mid / late ’70s as the last man standing producing a pollution control neutered “muscle car” that the insurance companies were no longer freaking out about. Ford answered that with the V-8 Mustang II, and even a “proper” Mustang – right there in the 1973 Ford showroom next to the MSII. It was just Ford’s bad luck that the pieces from the parts bin and the brand equity of the Mustang name were in the wrong places at the wrong time…..
Well, nuts. That last paragraph should have said 1974 showroom and pictured a 1974 Maverick Grabber, but it’s too late to edit that now.
One reason F bodies had a comeback [IMHO] was Boomers were getting first career jobs, in their later 20’s. Those with cash to spend wanted a unique sporty body shell, if they were going to pay for higher insurance.
I remember our “local Ford dealer” having the “tangerine/white Maverick” and the “avacado/white Pinto”in the showroom at the same time.
Something “blue” was there too; forgotten what it was…
Ungainly looking as the Mustang II is, its front & rear overhangs, weren’t as bad the Camaro of the same vintage. The Camaro depicted in this article is of the small bumper pre-’74 variety, before the MII debuted. From ’74 on Camaro acquired its elongated “shovel” nose and crash bumpers, significantly lengthening front & rear overhang. It got even worse with the ’78 Camaro urethane front & rear end re-design which ruined the Gen II Camaro’s near-perfect original proportions.
You’re missing a key point: it’s not just about front overhang. It’s the whole relationship of the body to the chassis and wheels. Admittedly the extended nose on the F Bodies was not an improvement, but the overall balance of the design was still there.
Many modern cars have gobs of front overhang; it depends on the whole package. Some work better then others. The MII’s didn’t.
“By designing a new front suspension and subframe for the MII,”
This front suspension has been used in many ‘street rod’ custom cars. So, there some “enthusiast following” for part of the car.
Also, the manta in Detroit was “not invented here”, “no furren cars”. So there was no chance of a Capri based MII.
As a bit of an MII fan I’ve always thought that they just needed somewhat larger wheel openings and less front overhang to look reasonably “right”, nice to see that Photoshop proves me right 🙂 .
Some of the Mustang II styling proposals look great – more like some ’80s designs. But, except for when trying to imitate European design (Seville & Granada) by the mid ’70s, fat, curvy, and bulbous was American automotive fashion. And don’t forget the weight and styling penalty the Mustang II was forced to carry from the very beginning with the 5-mph bumpers!
Happy Motoring, Mark
This Pinto prototype from 1970 looks like a better design than the Pinto ever was and possibly would have worked well for the MII.
seems like the maverick was to be the next mustang and the mII was to be its little brother.
bet marketing messed that one up. mII probably was finished before the maverick could turn into the mustang and then just didnt cuz it started to early in ’70. the maverick should have been called mII in ’70. it didnt lack style, it lacked detail in style only.
Articles are often based on “advertised” or googled numbers. My ’77 Mustang II coupe, with stock body before any modifications, with a stock 302 V8, weighed slightly under 2700 lbs. I had a certified truck scale at the family coal yard, so my measurement was accurate. My friend’s Maverick with a 302 and cast iron 3-speed manual weighed slightly under 2900 lbs on my scale. Now, after removing the 90 lb bumpers, and other heavy items from my car, it weighs 2450 lbs on the scale, with a 332″ stroker engine in it.
And just to point out, the Mustang II coupe is lighter than the fastback. As a builder, all I see when I look at older vehicles is their potential. Ford offered nothing lighter with a V8 option than a Mustang II, other than an AC Cobra. I’ve had a lot of cars on my scale, checking. Thus, I build Mustang IIs and believe it or not, physics is your friend. A 2450 lb car with 530 hp is quite quick in street trim. Lastly, the design of the Mustang II front suspension allows virtually any engine to fit in the car, because it doesn’t have the spring towers in the way. A 427 SOHC will physically fit, a Boss 429 will fit. Try it and see. In my view, the Mustang II is perfect as a performance build.
p.s. And btw, 17″ Cobra R wheels fit perfectly, as can be seen in the picture. I run 255/40ZR17 Toyo R888 tires front and rear and the car handles quite well, again, largely due to the very effective front suspension design.
First of all, the Mustang II came out with a V8 1974 . The problem was the only sold in Mexico because of the gas crisis .
Second of all your all continuing to add to the years of the Pinto / Mustang fable . Nothing on the Mustang to another than portions of the front suspension and the trunk pan have anything to do with the Pinto .
Mustang to has far more in common with the Maverick than it does the Pinto . It is NOT based on the Pinto at all .
https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/ford-mustang-ii/
Sorry, but the Pinto really was the starting point for the MII. Of course much was changed, but that’s where it started, not with the Maverick. The MII shares no DNA with the Maverick except for possibly the V8 engine, which of course it shared with all the Fords.
What you fail to accept is that the MII universally did very poorly in all the magazine reviews. It was too heavy, handled poorly, and of course was slow. The exact opposite of the Capri, which perpetually got excellent reviews, handled great, and had good performance, because it was much lighter.
I understand that the MII has loyal fans, but trying to change history is neither necessary nor a good strategy.
Here is an actual “long wheelbase” MII. Looks nice.
https://www.motor1.com/news/571997/1978-ford-mustang-ii-restomod-more-gt500/
I could never understand Ford’s seeming fascination for short wheelbases with long front overhangs. Especially when applied to a small car like the Mustang II, it just didn’t look right. The corrected Mustangs here look far better-proportioned.
One day I’ll build a ‘correct’ one.
Ahh the blessings of 20/20 hindsight.
The Pinto platform was probably viewed as new and modern and Ford was wanting to spread the development cost as much as possible and the Maverick platform was probably viewed as being dated and it’s days being numbered. Honestly? I thought the M2 coupe was cute. It’s biggest curse? Having been born with the Mustang name.
I’ll argue that the MII diverged more from the Pinto than the Fox body Mustang diverged from the Fairmont. The MII had that front subframe designed to reduce NVH compared to the Pinto, and later got a V8 option the Pinto never had. Inside, the Mustang II was treated to a unique and much nicer dashboard than the Pinto ever had, whereas the Fox body dash (up through 1986) was straight of a Fairmont other than its optional gauge package being made standard.
A four-cylinder entry level Maverick and Mav-Stang would have been possible — with the right engine. Ford sold Mavericks with a 2.3 liter OHC four in Brazil starting in 1975. One site says the four delivered an 0-10 time of 15.3 seconds.
Noting the comments, I would throw in that I don’t think the Mustang II was poorly designed. I can describe it as a ultra higher quality Pinto, with a sporty design. As a commuter car with sporty good looks, it did pretty much what it was supposed to do, sold well, made Ford money, in spite of the compromise of what Ford had to work with using the Pinto, and the end result of weight, handling, fuel economy. Most people that bought them were happy with the quality, the solid construction, and they went from point A to point B without much drama. Could be that Ford was privy to the GM H bodies on the way, and this was their economical competitor. As well GM made the H bodies from the Vega, another economical method to make a whole new line of cars from existing design.
Almost all of American Ford’s 1970s cars, from the MII to the Mark V, could use a stretch between front axle and firewall.
My big issue with using the Maverick as the basis for a new Mustang were the huge shock towers in the engine bay that severely constrained engine options. The Maverick’s full unibody design needed those towers to fit the front shocks, springs and control arms. I don’t know how much converting to a front subframe design like the Pinto would have cost in terms of time, money or weight, but that conversion is NOT trivial from an engineering standpoint. One of the reasons that I think that the Maverick’s competitors from GM and Chrysler handled better than the Maverick was the use of the front subframe architecture, which provided more rigidity for the front end.
The Maverick’s body design was also not the greatest. The rear seat was narrower than the back seat in my Mom’s 1961 Buick Special, the car Mom’s 1972 Maverick sedan replaced. The rear headroom, even in the sedan, was less than the competition, although that would have been less of an issue for a Mustang based on the same design. The Maverick also suffered from a high belt line and hood line, so driving one felt like sitting in a bucket. The unibody itself wasn’t the stiffest one out there, not by a long shot, so adding reinforcements to the Maverick to make a Maverick-based Mustang handle acceptably would also have added both weight and cost. I’m certain that the bottom feeder dash design of the Maverick, without even a proper glove box, wouldn’t have cut it with the Mustang faithful, so there’s more cost added to the design.
With all that said, the Pinto-based Mustang II was a new design, with an emphasis on chassis rigidity and quality that the bottom feeder Maverick would have had a tough time matching. The Maverick was a twice recycled design, based on a first-generation Mustang, which was in turn, a recycled Falcon. I don’t know if a Maverick based Mustang would have handled any better than the Maverick itself, but based upon my experiences with how bad my Maverick handled or used interior space, I have serious doubts about Ford’s ability to make that happen. The Maverick is like twice reheated frozen pizza. Mediocre the first time, and virtually inedible by the third sitting, LOL! Trying to stretch that design a fourth (4th) time into a new Mustang might have been the kiss of death, IMHO! BTW, wasn’t the Mercury Cougar based on the same platform as the original Mustang? How’d that work out for the Cougar during the “Bunkie” era?
With my wife to be, came a ’76 Mustang II hatchback. I at the time had a BMW Bavaria and a ’75 Toyota Celica. Pretty direct competitors, the Toyo and the ‘Stang, the BMW is just for reference. Screw the numbers, my recollections follow.
Appearance/styling. Washed and waxed, with poorly applied black trim, courtesy of her ex, the red MII hatchback was head and shoulders over the Toyo notchback.
Handling. The Mustang was no sports car, but the Toyo was embarrassingly bad. Scary in even mild cornering.
Drivetrain. The MII was slow, gutless and overgeared. Ran ok, but not well in an era when many didn’t run well at all. The Toyo, admittedly with 14 miles of vacuum tubing under the hood, ran great. Started easily, idled smoothly, ran great, but needed a 4th gear. Oh, it had one, well a fifth gear then. It was ridiculously undergeared. Reminded me of a ride in a very early Honda car in the early 70s. Not sure if it was a 360 or a 600. Ran great, the girl driving ran thru the gears, 1, 2, 3, 4. And we were still only doing 30MPH. OK, the Toyo wasn’t quite that bad, but reminiscent. In soft commute the Ford got 19-20. The Toyo 22. On the road the Ford got the same but the Toyo 25-27 as undergeared as it was.
Ford tranny, shifting wasn’t bad. The Celica was better than my BMW. Talk about snick/snick, it had it nailed. Problem was, Ford put 4 gears in where there should have been 5, and Toyota put 4 in where there should have been 3. Guess which one was more fun to drive, the undergeared Toyo.
Similar engines, both SOHC 4s, 2.2 for the Toyo and 2.3 for the Mustang II. But the Toyota did everything better, engine wise. More power, but not as much more as it might have seemed given the gearing, better idle, better MPG, just nicer to drive.
After all that, I’ve got to think Ford just flat out blew it. Not the platform, but the execution. The detail stuff that gets left ’til the end. If Toyota made a 2.2 engine run that well in that era, Ford should have been able to. If only by reverse engineering!!!
The MII was not a dud, but I’m guessing with just a little more effort, could have been a hit.
I’m a II fan, but I have to say the lead picture is a great improvement!
Ford and GM must have learned early on that with rising inflation and labor costs, they couldn’t make money at Pinto and Vega prices, so producing cars based on them that could sell at higher price points made financial sense and must, or should, have been in the works. The key risky decision was slapping the Mustang name on it, with the ’74 Cougar going midsize to hedge the bet.
Didn’t Ford turn the Maverick into the upscale, broughamy ’75 Granada, more successful as a four door than two? Where does the Granada program fit on the MII development timeline? Did Ford know about the upcoming ’75 Monza and GM about the MII in ’70-1?
The high front fender and tiny tires ruin its looks for me. The stubby wheelbase is less of a factor.
Ford would have been better off producing Australian/South African-inspired North American adaptations of the European Mk3-Mk5 Cortina/Taunus TC-TC3 and Mk1-Mk2 Granada in place of both the Pinto and Maverick, the European duo were said to share much mechanically from an economies of scale perspectives.
Something which was carried over to their Sierra and Mk1 Scorpio replacements, that were sold as Merkurs in the US and in the case of the Sierra would later be used to develop the Escort RS Cosworth.
Had the above come to pass (where the Cortina-based Pinto is available as a 4-door), it would have made sense for what became the “Mustang II” to be based on the Taunus TC Coupe and sold as the Capri. While the actual Mustang replacement, drawing upon the Maverick-based proposal would instead be based on the European Mk1 Granada Coupe.
The Australian Cortina was able to receive the 3rd gen Straight-Sixes and the same should apply to the larger Granada, while the South African- built Granadas was able to use the Windsor V8s and sold as the Perana Granada V8 by Basil Green Motors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Green_Motors